UAP 'Egg' Melbourne, Australia - 24.01.25 (with footage & photos)
- Thread starter ManInBlack
- Start date
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
@ManInBlack The resolution is still not good enough. Can you split the original video in two (slightly overlapping) parts and transfer each of them separately?
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
This recording shows the time but not the coordinates suggesting that the dashcam was not GPS enabled and its clock wasn't being corrected automatically.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
From the manual, indicates GPS might be used to set device time, it lists no manual time setting (only zone and DST) so it's probably only as accurate as the last time it got a GPS signal..
ManInBlack
Active Member
I have broken down the footage into two parts (the first part below). Resolution is 1080p.
ManInBlack
Active Member
...part two.
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
Thanks. The resolution is fine but there still may be losses of quality compared to the original. Have you done this in iMovie and exported files using Compress option 'Faster'?
Anyway, having watched the footage on a big screen many times forth and back, I think the object could be that plane (VOZ237), but in this case the dashcam clock had to be off, that is, slow by ~30 second.
The object's positions in the sky are in agreement with the VOZ237 track, in particular, with its section right after the turn, when the plane flew straight away in essentially the same directions as the car on the road. With the Sun shining in the front, the pane would be "invisible" to the witnesses and the wide angle dashcam, but it could reflect sunlight toward them in the same way the car in the front does. The reflected sunlight, coming from suitably oriented surfaces, would appear as a bright spot, like the "object" in the video. Zooming on it revealed that shape of the "object" varied and at one moment resembled a plane (inside red circle in the screenshot and its enhanced crop out below).
I have added the above screenshot to Google Earth to show the object's position relative to the flight track (red and green, from ADS-B exchange and FR24, respectively). The timing does not match, however. At the time shown in the screenshot (17:38:51), the plane hadn't turned yet. I expected to see it the frame in the beginning of the clip somewhere to the right of the road, but it is apparently lacking. Therefore, if this was indeed VOZ237, the camera time had to be incorrect and the recording of this clip started about 30 seconds later when the plane has already turned away.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
If you have an exact position match for the full 18 seconds (?), I"d consider that proof that it's the aircraft and that the dashcam clock was slow.
I can see creating a match for a single frame by tweaking the time on unrelated occurrences, but matching the motion for the full length of the clip proves it's the same object.
ManInBlack
Active Member
Everyone has the same footage I have. I reached out to the witness, he stated that the time on the in car camera matches & is synced with his iPhone. He confirmed that it is not slow by 30 seconds but I have asked him to double check.
The video and imagery below does clearly show the plane.
So if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's most likely a #$%^&* duck...
The video and imagery below does clearly show the plane.
So if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's most likely a #$%^&* duck...
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
Thanks for finding the plane. Now I can see that it was in the video from the beginning of the clip (17:38:27) but not in the area where I expected it to be. Looking at its flight track from the place where car was at the time (6:38:27 UTC), the plane was well to the right of the road and would reach its position in the beginning of the video only after 6:39:00 (thick red line corresponds the section of the track from 6:38:27 at the right end to 6:39:09 at the left end). This part of the flight is likely to be present in the previous segment of dashcam recording. Could you ask witnesses if they still have it?
I noted that their car was stationary at the beginning of this recording. Was it a stop at the traffic lights or they just started their trip? If the latter, it is possible that the dashcam clock had not been synchronised yet. There is an apparent discrepancy between the car time and the plane time.
Last edited:
Gaspa
Senior Member
Not necessarily, and I might be mistaken, but it doesn't look like we do.
Unless you have sent us the exact same file, we probably don't. Whenever you use a tool to cut or edit a video in any way, when you save it, it usually recompresses it, meaning it changes it losing some quality.
You're showing some snippets from close to the beginning of the first video above (UFO 1080P -1.mp4), right before and as the car starts moving.
I can't see any of that when I watch that video. All I see is a very faint smudge that appears and disappears, the power lines are pixelated staircases. In your prints the smudge looks less faint and the power cables are more like lines.
Not that this will help identifying the object, I think it's pretty close to settled right now, but it's useful to know.
I have downloaded the first of the last two videos sent, used ffmpeg to extract every frame from second 22.000 to second 25.000 as a png file (which doesn't recompress it), and that gives me 90 frames.
I can see nothing in the first 44 frames. At frame 45 (which would place it at 23.500 seconds in the video), it looks like the car goes through a shadow, which makes the windshield a bit less bright, and a small speck is visible right below a power line. I have cropped and used ImageJ to
resize it without interpolation - so we can see what actual pixels are in the image - below. First with some of the context around it.
Then another crop and resize (no interpolation) to see that it's a very low information 4x6 pixel rectangle.
Below is the object at frame 67, first version it has been scaled without interpolation (actual pixels), second is with bicubic interpolation. Most of the time, we have no idea what type of interpolation is being used when we resize an image, but some variation of bicubic I think still is a popular method.
Does it "look like a plane"? I mean, sure. It looks like a plane as much as it looks like anything else as a 3x4 pixels out of focus rectangle.
ManInBlack
Active Member
The screenshots were from the same footage. Maybe their is some compression that has taken place when I have cut down the files into two parts.
I'm limited by the attach file limit on here. If the limit is increased I could load the full file as it is.
I'm limited by the attach file limit on here. If the limit is increased I could load the full file as it is.
You could stick it on a file sharing site like https://wetransfer.com/ or Dropbox
So @ManInBlack sent me a file:
https://www.dropbox.com/t/Cx3f8vvc1FZruK66 (link will expire in 2 weeks)
It's a 1.14GB 1080p ProRes file exported from iMovie, so NOT the original, but presumably better quality. It has no useful Metadata.
https://www.dropbox.com/t/Cx3f8vvc1FZruK66 (link will expire in 2 weeks)
It's a 1.14GB 1080p ProRes file exported from iMovie, so NOT the original, but presumably better quality. It has no useful Metadata.
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
in the first few frames of this recording there is a dark object (a few pixels in length) coming from the right to the spot where the bright object of similar size appears later. This appears to be the plane that just took off from Melbourne Airport, a longer section of the initial track of which is likely to be present in the previous segment of the dashcam recording that is currently lacking. If we could get it we would be able to verify the plane identification.
Last edited:
ManInBlack
Active Member
Thanks @Mick West for posting on my behalf.
The original footage has audio, there was a private conversation on it unrelated to the incident. The witnesses said I could share the footage but not the audio. The audio was separated but was all.
The original footage has audio, there was a private conversation on it unrelated to the incident. The witnesses said I could share the footage but not the audio. The audio was separated but was all.
ManInBlack
Active Member
This doesn't change much but I was able to get this from the original file.
Similar threads
